Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

If you think the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare) just benefits people who can't get health insurance any other way, think again. Two major provisions of this act gave to all of us an end to lifetime limits and being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. So, even if you are covered through your employer, you still benefit from these provisions.

My family knows very personally the importance of these two benefits. Two years ago, my son experienced a catastrophic event during heart surgery that left him clinging to life for a few months and permanently damaged. His wife is employed and has family health insurance coverage. However, without the ACA, his family would have been bankrupt as his medical expenses passed the million-dollar mark within the first three months of this catastrophe.

The Republican Party and candidate Donald Trump want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. If they succeed, we will all lose the benefits of no lifetime limit or pre-existing condition protection. The Democratic Party and candidate Hillary Clinton recognize that ACA is not perfect and measures should be taken to improve it, thus preserving these two benefits.

A catastrophic medical event can happen to anyone, as my family found out. Many families, like ours, have been spared bankruptcy, thanks to ACA. We are all vulnerable. It doesn't just happen to "the other guy." How you vote in November will have long lasting consequences for your family.

Readers will appreciate the irony of me writing a letter that's critical of a newspaper headline but Friday's "Mayor makes case for commercial development at The Weirs" has me doing just that.

On Oct. 11, I made a short, numerical presentation to City Council that was intended to bolster the case that a healthy amount of commercial property to tax lessens the burden on residences located within a municipality, thereby reducing the cost of housing. My presentation did not mention the Weirs nor was it meant in any way to suggest that the Weirs has a duty to carry the commercial property tax burden for the rest of the city.

The council has been advised by the city manager that Laconia's current ratio of residential to commercial property is in the 84 to 16 percent range and that a "healthy" range is something more like 65 to 35 percent. We know that almost all of the significant tracts of undeveloped Laconia land that are currently zoned commercial lie in the Rte. 3 corridor at the Weirs and preserving that option was certainly a major factor in crafting the Weirs rezoning proposal that the council has passed on to the Planning Board for review and comment. But that is not to say that most or all of future commercial development in the city should be restricted to the Weirs. The periodic review of our overall zoning plan should be examining the potential viability of new sites for commercial development.

There is no question that Laconia, as is true for much of New Hampshire, is facing a long-term demographic crisis. One look at declining school enrollment and the rising poverty level among the students who remain provides the graphic evidence. We are losing and not replacing our middle and upper-middle class families and the high cost of housing is unquestionably a major reason.

As far as solutions are concerned, I certainly do not need to have my way on all the details but we need to start this conversation.